Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Code Updates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mendon planning meeting vets zoning updates on backyard pigs, frontage and sight lines
Summary
At a Mendon planning meeting, participants reviewed proposed zoning text limiting backyard pigs, clarifying flag‑lot/frontage rules, and tightening fence and corner sight‑line standards; staff were asked to produce technical sight‑distance guidance and a public hearing was scheduled.
Participants at a Mendon planning meeting reviewed proposed changes to the city's zoning code that would set limits on backyard pigs, clarify frontage rules for flag lots and private lanes, and tighten fence and clear‑view requirements at street corners.
Unidentified Speaker 1 read a draft animal‑regulation section aloud, saying, "A maximum of 2 pigs shall be permitted on properties of 1.25 acres." The draft states pigs would be allowed for personal use only, prohibits commercial swine operations within city limits, and sets age and duration limits: no pig may remain on a property for more than 225 days in a 12‑month period and no pig older than 250 days would be allowed. Enforcement proposed in the draft includes a written warning on the first violation, a $75 fine on a second violation, and removal at the owner's expense on a third violation.
The meeting then turned to lot‑frontage and subdivision language. Unidentified Speaker 1 said the city must remove ambiguity about flag lots and private‑lane frontage: if the code does not explicitly prohibit a configuration, it can be interpreted as allowed. The speaker asked staff (referred to in discussion as Seth and Eric) to draft clearer wording that requires public street frontage for new lots rather than permitting lots accessed solely by private lanes.
Fence heights and corner sight lines drew extended debate. Commissioners reviewed pictures of Logan Street and Mendon overhead imagery to illustrate where fences, bushes and property lines encroach on visibility. Participants discussed whether the clear‑view triangle should extend 15, 20, 30 or 40 feet from the property corner and noted that other cities cite 30–40 feet in their codes. One participant recommended basing any required distance on a stopping sight‑distance formula tied to posted speed limits rather than a single fixed number.
On vegetation and solid fencing at corners, Unidentified Speaker 1 said state code requires corner vegetation to be trimmed to remain low for visibility and described a proposed approach limiting the solid portion of fence at a corner to roughly 3 feet while allowing open/picket fencing up to 6 feet. The group also discussed exceptions for agricultural/open fencing and how enforcement would be handled in practice; attendees noted enforcement is often complaint‑driven and that many residents may not know current rules.
As a technical next step, Unidentified Speaker 1 asked staff to have an engineer or public‑works staff member compute stopping sight‑distance measurements for the town's street types and provide an equivalent measurement from property lines that would be enforceable. The group agreed the technical input would guide precise code language and enforcement locations.
Participants also reviewed the general plan, noting chapters that need updating (land use, housing, economic development, public services, transportation and environmental quality) and agreed to split work by sections, meet with staff and the mayor, and hold a public meeting followed by a formal public hearing on the proposed code changes. A follow‑up meeting was scheduled for Tuesday at 6 p.m., and staff agreed to circulate the residential/commercial draft and meeting reminders by email.
The meeting produced direction to staff to draft clearer frontage language, to provide an engineering sight‑distance analysis, and to schedule the public‑engagement steps needed before changes could be adopted. No formal motions or votes were recorded in the transcript.
